Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

1 August 2022 (*)

(EU trade mark – Revocation of the contested decision – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)

In Case T‑742/21,

Preventicus GmbH, established in Jena (Germany), represented by J. Zecher, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Markakis, acting as Agent,

defendant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and R. Norkus, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

makes the following

Order

1        By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Preventicus GmbH, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 September 2021 (Case R 1241/2020-4) (‘the contested decision’).

2        By decision of 17 March 2022, the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO revoked the contested decision pursuant to Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1) and to Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation 2017/1001 and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ 2018 L 104, p. 1).

3        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 7 June 2022, EUIPO submitted an application for a declaration that there was no need to adjudicate on the action on the ground that the action had become devoid of purpose.

4        On 13 June 2022, the applicant submitted its observations on that application and agreed to the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate.

5        Under Article 130(2), (5) and (7) of its Rules of Procedure, if a party so requests, the Court may declare, having heard the other party, that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

6        It is sufficient in the present case to note that, having regard, first, to the revocation of the contested decision and, secondly, to the fact that the revocation decision has become final, the present action has become devoid of purpose. It follows that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.

7        Furthermore, Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.

8        In the present case, it is apparent from the revocation decision that the contested decision was revoked on the ground that it contained an obvious error attributable to EUIPO (see, to that effect, order of 25 May 2021, Rochem Group v EUIPO – Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services), T‑263/20, not published, EU:T:2021:299, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited). In those circumstances, the Court considers that it is appropriate to order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.      The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Preventicus GmbH.

Luxembourg, 1 August 2022.

*      Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.